Thanks for writing down your opinion. When you reread carefully my last post, you will find a paragraph which covers the motivation of people to perform a task that is advertised as very difficult and hence a challenge for them to gain self esteem when they pick it up and finish it.

Also the chance to be incorporated in a group that advertises the self esteem of the group by having performed a prescribed task is pretty motivating for a lot of hams. I conclude this when I see the fancy awards pinned on the shack walls and the conquering behavior in all kind of contests.

Pretty vague, but somebody wrote recently 20 wpm. and that is perfect for ham use, you can work everybody relaxed, except some guys that refuse to go QRS, and even that has advantage: the fastest USA ham is still K7QO, if my information is correct, and he wrote on his website, that his motivation as a young guy to train QRQ was, a guy that refuses to go QRS in his novice contact.

Rules of what club? Please don't get me wrong , i encourage ANYONE who wants to learn the code , i QRS when needed as others do for me . This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code , i heard more than 3 or 4 people state when the KX3 arrived they were going to start doing morse HOW ? , well it has a decoder so they can instantly become a cw op ...apparently.

Rarely do i hear people stating they have had the headaches of sat ,often on thier own cracking on with learning the code YET the common thing seems to be newcomers constantly asking about de coders and often before even having a crack without one..

This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code

Can't say I've noticed that. I have come across quite a few folk who're trying to learn Morse but not finding much practical support or encouragement. There are exceptions (for instance there's one regular GB2CW operator not that far away I try to listen to each week, but I seldom receive his transmission any much better than 339) but they're few and far between.

Rules of what club? Please don't get me wrong , i encourage ANYONE who wants to learn the code , i QRS when needed as others do for me . This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code , i heard more than 3 or 4 people state when the KX3 arrived they were going to start doing morse HOW ? , well it has a decoder so they can instantly become a cw op ...apparently.

Rarely do i hear people stating they have had the headaches of sat ,often on thier own cracking on with learning the code YET the common thing seems to be newcomers constantly asking about de coders and often before even having a crack without one..

How can there be any enjoyment copying code with a decoder ? It seems I am correct to think it is impossible to copy a PSK signal in one's mind . I find PSK not to be fun at all. Except for the few dx pile ups I was in. Working split with many stations calling was a bit fun. But otherwise I am not sure I will ever use psk again.

But Morse Code now that is exciting even after many years and 1000's of contacts.

I know you are a top cw op and you understand what I say. The reward of years of practice to be able to copy in head even poor fist great fist straight keys bugs, electronic keys , keyboard ops. The music of Morse code . The pile ups the qso. This cw is unmatched by any mode I have tried.

If you do not understand the music what point is there to use a decoder ? I just believe those hams with their new K3 will either give it up or will learn to copy code the right way ? What do you think ?

This side of the pond has been getting a trend for people wanting to use cw without even wanting to learn the code

Can't say I've noticed that. I have come across quite a few folk who're trying to learn Morse but not finding much practical support or encouragement. There are exceptions (for instance there's one regular GB2CW operator not that far away I try to listen to each week, but I seldom receive his transmission any much better than 339) but they're few and far between.

Don't get me wrong i know people doing it the "right way" without de coders , and i agree there isn't a whole heap of help around without activly searching some out . The 2m transmissions and a few on HF will help and i think there are a few clubs taking classes on .. It was a hard slog for me as no one i knew was interested ,and as many will , i also thought it was going to be impossible for me to learn when the fact is yes it takes commitment and effort but it's not something that i would class as hard , it's just another learning curve.

Many people nowdays want instant gratification , not just learning code but in all manner of things , personally i feel it's the fault of the electronic age whereby we can do so many things with little or no effort.

a guy not far from me wanted to try code so i said i would help him , he doesn't live that far away so i could of sat with him over a table and sent/recieved code when he got to that stage etc etc BUT he wanted a decoder to look at . I said ok but NOT to use it for learning but all he wanted was to learn the letters/numbers etc and use the decoder to read and i couldn't convince him not too . " i can't see the point in learning something i don't have too" on that i left him too it ..

...and I guess he didn't go far. I figure there's one good use for decoders, and that's as something to practice sending to. If the decoder can read you then you're probably sending tolerable code.

There is, according to http://www.rsgb.org.uk/morse/schedule.php , supposed to be a regular GB2CW transmission on VHF near here, but I've listened for it several times and never heard it. I can, on a good day, hear about half of one regular weekly HF transmission, but usually it's sufficiently clobbered by QSB (and, sometimes, QRM too) that listening is frustrating rather than helpful. Below, typed from my hand-written scrawl, is what I heard last week. In the original some spaces are longer than others, but they almost all indicate multiple missed characters, and quite a bit of that's down to poor reception.

I have no idea what a decoder would have made of the signal, but I presume a competent person would have managed a bit better than I did.

Perhaps a more competent operator would have done better, maybe not. It's questionable if a decoder could have done any better than you. As someone mentioned, the thing between the ears is the best decoder ever made. And this is the whole point in learning the code. If you stay with it you'll will find those "gaps" will become fewer and your "scrawl" will give way to solid copy and perhaps even 'head copy.'

As one who has used the code for almost 60 years I can assure you and everyone else here, with decoders or computers, the human brain can pick out a signal among many and understand what is being said. The brain can pick out a "fist" that has been heard before; can tell if an operator has been changed on a radio circuit; if that operator is drunk or maybe sick or simply doesn't give a rats ass if he does his job or not.

NO decoder or computer can do that. None.

JHA:

Quote

Many people nowdays want instant gratification , not just learning code but in all manner of things , personally i feel it's the fault of the electronic age whereby we can do so many things with little or no effort.

You're absolutely right on the money! I often refer to this generation as the "Right Now!" generation. I watch my 3 grandkids when they do things and it's always done in twitches and jerks. If it doesn't go well immediately, then they set it down and go off to something else. Usually a mindless video game.

I have to be careful here on the CW forum that I don't get emotional to some of what I read. Never in our history have we had more ways to learn the code than we do today. In spite of what is available we still read of another "best way to learn code" or "what's the best and fastest way to learn code?"

Then there are those who whine about "nobody to help me." Whatever happened to doing it yourself, no matter what it takes or how long it takes?

.. well i'm a young pup , been at it 3 years maybe a little longer . i tried learning the code twice and gave up on both occasions , a few month down the line i would sit and think if only i had stuck with it i would be doing it now .. The last attempt i decided to try and make it as fun as i could and try and enjoy learning , i remember ( sounds daft now) hearing someone say DR JOHN IT WAS SO HOT TODAY I NEARLY FAINTED , or something along those lines

I ran into the living room to tell the wife i had just heard someone telling a doctor he had nearly fainted with the heat i didn't get much else but from that moment i knew it could be done , i knew i could do it even after thinking no way could i ever be able to . Now i'm one of those people that says " if i can , anyone can" , and anyone can .

i'm 44 but can remeber the days of only landline telephones only and no computers , plugs /points and distributers on cars and people that looked at you and conversed instead of walking round staring at a smartphone ..

are we in a better place now ? personally i think not .. but i know i should of been born 30 years earlier

I'm pretty sure that I'd have beaten a decoder on that signal, because the quality of the signal was bad enough to give any of the decoders I've come across serious problems, but even so I suspect maybe a third (or more) of the characters I did write down I got wrong. I'm pretty sure that a competent operator would have copied at least twice as much as I managed, and with far fewer errors.

Then there are those who whine about "nobody to help me." Whatever happened to doing it yourself, no matter what it takes or how long it takes?

I had no trouble studying for the Intermediate and Advanced exams by myself, but I've been trying to learn Morse by myself since mid 2010. Truth is it's easier to learn some things when you get positive reinforcement and feel that you're making progress, and Morse, being a method of communication, is a lot harder to learn if you don't have anyone to talk to...

...and at least until you can recognise enough characters to know your own callsign and read the callsign of the other operator, it's simply not practical to find someone to talk to on the air.

I had no interest in CW at all. Using PSK31 and JT65 was interesting... Then, I heard the CW and tried using the machine. Which,... Led to an interest in learning the CW. So, in a sense, using FLDIGI brought on a curiosity for CW that didn't exist before.

CW decoders do not work and if you think they do, I have a nice bridge that I would like to sell you. If you want to play on cw, get off you but and out the effort lo learn it. There is no short cut. There is not technology at this moment that will decode like the good old human ear and brain. Yes, if the signal is strong enough, you can copy those who send with a computer keyboard. You can copy those who send with an electronic keyer and a set of paddles. Try copying a signal so faint you can barely hear it. Try decoding a someone who is not proficient with a bug. Try decoding some of those real bad fists out there. Try decoding great and melodious cw send perfectly but with a strait key. Again, if you want to play on cw you have to put the time and effort. If you are not willing to do so, stay digital or on ssb.

JHA: Very inspirational! When you first hear signals on the air and are able to understand some of what is being said, then this is when the excitement starts! This is what causes the almost uncontrollable hunger to hear and understand more! If only others would try to understand this.

LEP:

Quote

being a method of communication, is a lot harder to learn if you don't have anyone to talk to...

Perhaps there's an element of truth in this but let's stop and analyze. The usual method of learning code is to obtain tapes, CDs..... some recorded media to listen to. Initially it is a group of letters or numbers and more are added as you learn.

When it comes to sending, which most find easier than copying, it's a simple matter of emulating what you have been listening to. The point is to emulate the element length, the spacing between letters and the spacing between words. Have you ever heard a non-English speaking person speak English with a British accent? Guess why. They are emulating what they hear.

While you learn the code from recorded media it's also good idea to listen to it as it is on the air. However, it must be understood from the outset that the two sources will be very different and not let it frustrate you. It's a simple matter of understanding why this is.

Once you are able to listen to on the air CW and understand what is being sent and you are pretty sure you are able to send like what you have been listening to, then get on the air and have at it. It will be unsteady, perhaps upsetting or even frustrating but all of this is very short lived.

The point of this is that you haven't had anyone to "help" you or even to talk to. It's how you do it yourself. Sure, it might be easier and even more fun to have someone to be with you but it sure isn't necessary!

However, it must be understood from the outset that the two sources will be very different and not let it frustrate you.

These days tapes and CDs have been replaced by computer-generated code (often using tones I find somewhat painful to listen to), but yes, what's on the air and what's served up by the training sources aren't much alike...

Once you are able to listen to on the air CW and understand what is being sent

A point I'm still well short of, at least partly because I hear very little code being sent slowly enough for me to stand a chance. One GB2CW transmission a week (if I'm lucky) is never going to be enough by itself, and most of the code I hear on air is 20wpm or faster, which is too fast...

Sure, it might be easier and even more fun to have someone to be with you but it sure isn't necessary!

The point I was trying to make is that folks learn in different ways. I could do the licence exams on my own easily, but other people struggle, and need teaching to get through them. Flip-wise, some folks can clearly learn Morse easily, and others (like me) struggle...

CW decoders do not work and if you think they do, I have a nice bridge that I would like to sell you.

They clearly work up to a point, as sites like http://www.reversebeacon.net/ wouldn't work if they didn't, but they're certainly not foolproof. I sometimes wonder just how many of the callsigns spotted on that site are incorrect; I've noticed one or two...

Copyright 2000-2016 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement